Untitled

Evening Star, Issue 3820, 22 May 1875, Page 2

Our correspondent, “A southland Membei” takes exception to our sayinv that it will be no easy matter to stay the stomachs of the representatives of his part of the Province, while to satisfy them will be nearly or quite impossible. A Southland Member ” says * this is followed by similar remarks, but no attempt is made to prove the accuracy of ths statements.” This is undoubtedly quite true—no attempt to prove the statements was made. Ths fast is that it was altogether unnecessary for us te prove what had already been shown to be true in the clearest and most direct way by Mr Rkidviz., that the members for Southland were troubled with a craving for a larger proportion of the public revenue than they could by any means be shown to , sligltest right to. For the benefit jSouthland Member,’ we quote from the Guardian ’ that part of Mr Reid’s speech which he has evidently forgotten, but which referred to the demands of the representatives of the South hon. member forsook his constituents, ana rushed off to an extreme comet of the Province, f“ aWay k° South, to find, a grievance. He said large revenues had been lateen away from Southuu.Land that it was only proposedktoJlgive £11.770 IJrn dur hig the year. Now there was a retain i m t9Vs

laid on tie table on the pterions evening; it did not embody all the items appropriated for that district • but he (Mr Ekid) would ask the careful attention of the hon. member, as well as that of the hon memher for Waiopai (Mr Wood) to the statement which he was about to reed, showing items of expenditure for the district of Southland, for this rear 1875-6 First, Executive, £s,ooo—*, £625; Provincial Counc‘}> £3> 61 ?Ht, f452 ; police, £3,700 ; district gaols, £1,500; medical officer, £75; sheep inspector, £3OO ■ Land Office, £1,575; Survey ditto, £3,600; railways (general), £700; ditto, Bluff Harbor and Invercargill, £15,000; ditto, Mataura, £8,000; Engineer’s Department, £1,000; treasury, £152; harbor, £2,100 • education, £4,450; goldfields, £3OO grants in aid, £1,500; Industrial School, £250; miscellaneous, £1,000; roads, £11,770; Stewart’s Island, £2lO • bridges, £6,776; jetties and harbors, £4,200; sur’ veys, £2,000; works and buildings, £1,500; railways. £82,589; new engines, £8,000; wagons, £8,000; alterations of gauge, £3,000; school buildings, £4,000; interest and sinking fund on loans, £29,9ss—makintr a total of £208,179. —(Laughter.) Hon. members might lough. He supposed he weuld be told that these were not new works. That was true; but the Government had to provide for old works—for existing institutions. What would the hon, member say for instance, if they cut off the survey staff P When the hon. member came forward and told the Council that it was proposed to spend only £11,770, he was talking bunkum.

Unless t< then, these statements were disproved it is quite plain that the Southland members are desirous of getting the lion’s share of the spoil, and that it will really be very hard to content them with less. Let us see, then, what sort of answers were made to Mr Reid. As far as we can see, there were two. Whin he made the statement referred to, some members laughed this was one answer. The other was perhaps about equally convincing. It was this : Mr Fish said

He considered that Southland had hardly been treated fairly, considering the amounts voted for new works there during the ensuing year. There was only LIO,OOO in all to be spent there for this purpose, L 3,000 of which was for roads. This amount lie regarded as being insufficient.

Those who prefer Mr Fish’s bare, unsupported OP l ™ l * (and amongst these, not improbably ‘ A Southland Member ” will be found) to Mr Reid’s facts, are of course at liberty to do so. u® hardly th ink _ that the facts of the case will bear out the view talcen in our correspondent s letter, that we have made random statements incapable of being proved.